DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order of Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad, dated 15th April 1984, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant, filed under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant was a permanent employee of the respondent Bank as an officer Grade-III, and was temporarily posted in the capacity of Manager at Khairpur Nathan Shah Branch, District Dadu. He was relieved from the managership with effect from 26th December, 1980 and was posted as an officer Grade-III in the same Branch and was assigned the duties of recovery of agricultural loans granted to various growers of the area and that he had to do various other duties which were purely of clerical and of manual nature. The appellant had no power of supervision or control over the affairs of the Branch except the powers of Inter-branch signatures which were also cancelled, vide order, dated 14th January, 1981. A charge-sheet, dated 18th January, 1981 was served on 25th January, 1981 which was based on the non-adjustment of the agricultural loans granted to the growers, under the orders of the Head Office of the Bank. A reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the appellant on 29th January, 1981 and he denied the charges. An enquiry was held on 20th May, 1981, and he was found guilty of some irregularities only. The appellant was suspended but was assigned the charge of Recovery Officer and he recovered about Rs, 9 lakhs out of Rs, 11 lakhs of the loans. During the period of suspension he got 50% of pay and allowance and that his annual increments were stopped and so also the bonus. He remained under suspension till dismissal of his services on 26th March, 1981. A final show-cause notice, dated 1st March, 1981 was served on the appellant on 20th March, 1981. The appellant submitted .His reply on 20th March, 1981 at 10.00 a.m. But at 10.30 a.m., on the same date, he was communicated of a dismissal order. He was not heard when he preferred a departmental appeal and that his departmental appeal was not responded to, therefore, he filed the grievance petition.
3. The stand taken by the management bank is that the grievance petition was not maintainable as the appellant was not a workman and that the dismissal of the appellant was quite judicial and legal.
4. The parties adduced evidence and filed the documents.
5. I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi Advocate, and Mr. Bashir Awan, Advocate, for the respondent Bank.
6. The learned counsel of the appellant argued that the appellant was performing the duties of clerical nature. He went from door to door for the recovery of the advanced loans and as such he was involved in such duties which were both clerical and manual. The facts are that he was put under suspension on 26th December, 1980 and he Was paid half of the pay and other allowances were stopped. All the same he worked as Recovery Officer involving clerical and manual work. The learned counsel Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi relied on the citations, namely, PLD 1982 Kar. 913, 1983 PLC
862. In this connection also, the deicision of this Tribunal in Appeals Nos, SUK-122. 123, 124, 125 and 127 of 1983 could be relied upon. The decision of this Tribunal has held that officers in Grade-III be deemed to be workmen and mere grace does not determine that he performed only managerial or supervisory duties. Therfore, in view of these decisions the appellant is a workman according to the Standing Orders.
7. The charge-sheet which was served on him recites the allegations that he advanced the, loans on personal grounds. One does not know what is the meaning of personal grounds but as the Advocates state, that he gave loans to certain persons from whom he took commission. But such an evidence is not on record and nothing is said in the enquiry that a particular person advanced money to the appellant for grant of loan. The mitigating circumstance in this case is that the loans were granted to the tune of Rs, 11 lakhs, and he recovered the loans to the tune of Rs, 9 lakhs. His feat of recovery was appreciated by the higher officers and such notes are on record, which are as under :- 4,(i) Dated 13th August, 1981.
' We are pleased to note that a substantial amount of Rs, 7 lacs out of the total agricultural production loans of Rs, 11 lacs allowed by Mr. Ghulam Rasool Baloch, Ex-Manager of Kot Nathan Shah Branch has been recovered through his efforts.
(Sd)
Senior Vice-President."
' Dated 4th September, 1982.
'We recommend that his request may kindly be considered sympathetically and his services may be reinstated.
(Sd.)
Zonal Chief."
8. The record shows that the work done by the appellant was very Much appreciated and one is surprised to find that in the month of March, 1983, instead of reinstating him, he was dismissed.
Briefly, therefore, the charges are not proved and it appears that he was treated unsympathetically.
9. The enquiry officer has absolved the appellant from the charge of accepting percentage or illegal gratification by advancing loans. The main charge was of illegal gratification which is not proved even according to the enquiry officer. The other charges are of incompetency, or of lack of experience in banking work which are minor charges and they are to be condoned. In fact, broadly speaking, there is no charge worth dismissal of the appellant.
13. The sudden dismissal in the month of March, 1983, Is belated and very much surprising. I would not endorse the dismissal of the appellant and would allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Labour Court. The appellant is to be reinstated in the respondent Bank forthwith. As regards the back benefits, he strenuously served the respondent Bank in Recovery while he was under suspension getting only 50% of his pay. His recovery efforts were very much appreciated by the higher authorities and in fact they had recommended his reinstatement. However, only 50% of back benefits be awarded to the appellant.